Iran: A Note About the Voice of America, NIAC, and the "Journalism" of The Washington Times

The Washington Times, never a shy paper in its assertions and opinions, leaves no doubts about its position in an editorial, "Voice of the Mullahs". With the supporting headline, "Public Diplomacy Takes A Pro-Islamist Tilt", the opinion pieces begins, "The Voice of America is becoming the Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Inflammatory stuff, and the newspaper keeps pouring on the gasoline. After giving big space to a letter to President Obama from 70 legislators requesting that the White House "investigate reported mismanagement and bias at Voice of America's Persian News Network (VOA-PNN)", two cases are cited:

1. On March 29, VOA-PNN interviewed Hooshang Amir-Ahmadi, "an anti-sanctions activist called "Iran's pseudo U.S. lobbyist" by Iranian democracy groups. Mr. Amir-Ahmadi expressed the view that Iran's belligerent posture and nuclear program are the natural results of being surrounded by U.S. missiles and bombs; hence, progress can come only through the United States softening its policies toward Tehran.

2. On April 1, VOA gave airtime to Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has received millions of dollars in federal funds to promote democracy in Iran. Mr. Parsi expressed various odd positions, such as that Israel prefers to have hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power in Tehran, that members of the Obama administration know sanctions won't work but pursue them only as a bargaining position, and - most strangely - that even if Iran succeeded in establishing a democracy, the United States would nevertheless keep sanctions in place. VOA gave Mr. Parsi preferential treatment by banning callers while he was on the air even though he appeared on a call-in show; those who later took issue with his views were quickly cut off.

Allegations that the US Government's media outlets appease or even support the enemy are far from new. The Voice of America was a prime target for Republican Congressmen, including Senator Joseph McCarthy, and even Radio Free Europe, which pressed for "liberation" in Eastern Europe, came under fire in the 1950s.

This time, however, the VOA is just the whipping boy for the bitter conflict between The Washington Times and NIAC. We noted last autumn that one of the newspaper's reporters had channelled the claims of Hassan Daioleslam, who is being sued by Parsi over a series of allegations, that NIAC was an unregistered lobbying firm. The implication soon follows that NIAC is not only lobbying but doing so on behalf of the current Iranian Government.

There is no need to take a position on those claims, which have split Iranian-American activists in the US, to note the shallowness of The Washington Times' latest assault. I haven't come across recordings of the two cases, but even the newspaper's attacking spin is shaky. One does not have to agree with "Iran's belligerent posture and nuclear program are the natural results of being surrounded by U.S. missiles and bombs" to note the argument that Washington's perceived hostility in measures such as the Nuclear Posture Review could prompt Tehran to respond with aggressive statements.

Parsi's supposed statement that "members of the Obama administration know sanctions won't work but pursue them only as a bargaining position" is a distortion of his position, set out in other articles, that US officials may not think that a toughened international sanctions regime will not be possible through the UN but take that line to achieve other goals. One might note, for example, EA's own analysis that the public posture on sanctions covers the "real" story, which is disinvestment by private firms who are quite likely to be in contact with Western Governments.

(Someone at the newspaper might want to reflect, if only for a few seconds, on the effectiveness of a broadcaster which provided only those views which were supportive of the official line of the US Government and/or those --- like The Washington Times --- who advocate military action against Iran.)

Irrespective of one's opinino on NIAC, even more important in this attack piece is The Washington Times' wilful attempt at collateral damage. This histrionic assault on the Voice of America does no good for a broadcaster which continues to provide news and analysis despite the serious restrictions on media by the Iranian regime. If the newspaper is really saying that the broadcasting services funded by the US Government are actually propaganda outlets for Tehran, then be honest and provide evidence for that sensational charge.

The Iranian Government claims VOA is part of America's "soft war" for "regime change"; The Washington Times claims VOA is not Washington's voice but that of Tehran.

Sometimes self-constructed paradoxes speak even more loudly than polemic posing as journalism.

(Full disclosure: I appeared in March on a panel at the US Senate organised by NIAC. I did so in a personal capacity, presenting my views on the internal situation in Iran and on US foreign policy towards Tehran. At no point did NIAC try to "steer" my comments.)

Comments

[robert]

here actually :-)
http://tiny.cc/wh58j

[ange paris]

robert
I think both of them ! but yours is the "best" as so response !

[An activist Green Lurker]

its amazing when you look at those defending NIAC and their reasoned, evidence based arguments vs those who simply defame NIAC with made-up statistics, empty assertions, and easily disprovable accusations.

Arshama - on the HR issue you raised...

first off, from 2002 until 2006, NIAC did not do ANY political advocacy, on war, on sanctions, on anything. it only tried to build up the capacity within IAs to represent themselves. in 2006, they took a vote of their paying members(at the time 1000-1500 I think) - this was the height of Dick Cheney's war mongering and saber rattling - and took only anti-war and anti-sanctions advocacy positions.

in 2007, they had the first and only iranian sponsored conference on Capitol Hill itself with HRW and AI and 3 members of Congress (Honda, Moran, and Tancrado!!)

in 2008, they took a vote of their members on HR and added it to their issues (before the 2009 election). so no, they have not changed their Human Rights position because of the 2009 election.

remember - unlike ANY other Iranian organization - NIAC has its entire budget posted online (and it gets its funding in $40-$1000 increments from average Iranian Americans not $200,000 and $1million checks from rich monarchists). its budget in 2002 was under $100,000 and from what I can find, it has not yet reached $1 million/yr...

this is a very small budget for the HUGE issues NIAC has been handling.

[Bijan]

In my opinion, NIAC is doing good to protect the interests of Iranian Americans. Let's face facts, with AIPAC's far reaching influence it is important Iranian Americans have a voice in Washington. While PAAIA seems to be growing in popularity, NIAC still seems to have more reach comparatively.

While NIAC's views may not represent ALL Iranian Americans view..when would it ever? To an article above regarding the prediction the end may have been near for the green movement, that was an opinion based on facts and circumstances and let us not forget one that was expressed by many in the analyst community who claim to be greens.

Again, I am not defending NIAC and like many here do not always agree with language produced by NIAC's staffers, officers but in the spirit of fairness, I feel this dialogue needs to move from finger pointing back to good hearted debate on the issues at hand.

[theali]

Obligatory BBC report exposing the neo-con PR campaign against NIAC and Trita Parsi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYZc2EZdBic